| |
CDJ 2026 Utt HC 025
|
| Court : High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Case No : First Bail Application No. 515 Of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA |
| Parties : Mohit Jadav Versus State of Uttarakhand |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Applicant: Prabhakar Narayan, holding brief of Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocates. For the Respondent: Deepak Bhardwaj, Brief Holder. |
| Date of Judgment : 07-04-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 3(5) -
Comparative Citation:
2026 UHC 2431,
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Sections 310(2), 311, 317(3), 61(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India
2. Catch Words:
- Bail
- Personal liberty
- False implication
- Identification parade
- Sureties
3. Summary:
The Court examined the bail application of Mohit Jadav, who is in judicial custody for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The applicant contended that he was not named in the FIRs, was not identified by the victim, and that the recoveries were false. The respondent opposed the bail. The Court emphasized that bail is the rule and detention is an exception, invoking Article 21’s guarantee of personal liberty. Considering the circumstances and the lack of any compelling reason to keep the applicant detained, the Court decided to grant bail without commenting on the merits of the case. The applicant was ordered to execute a personal bond and furnish two reliable sureties.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. Applicant - Mohit Jadav is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Sections 310(2), 311, 317(3), 61(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Case Crime No.133 of 2025, registered at Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.
2. On 28.04.2025, at 22:49 hrs, the police received an information that five persons on two motorcycles are coming, who had committed robbery on 25.04.2025 and 26.04.2025. The police directed the persons, who were coming on motorcycles, to surrender then, they fired at the police. Applicant and other co-accused were apprehended by the police in the cross-firing (Case Crime No.134 of 2025). The police recovered one Aadhaar Card, one PAN Card and Rs.6,000/- from the possession of the applicant. He told them that the said money was looted by him with his other associates on 25.04.2025 and 26.04.2025. He was arrested at 03:05 hrs on 29.04.2025.
3. On 25.04.2025, at around 10.15 p.m., unknown persons arrived at the informant's petrol pump "Guru Nanak Filling Station" on two motorcycles and four of them looted Rs.27,000/- by showing country made pistols to Nitin Singh, the salesman of the informant. The present First Information Report (FIR No.133 of 2025) was registered on 26.04.2025. The applicant and others committed another dacoity on 26.04.2025 and looted Rs.40,000/- and a mobile phone from a petrol pump "MA Fuels" (FIR No.131 of 2025).
4. Heard Mr. Prabhakar Narayan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder for the respondent.
5. Mr. Prabhakar Narayan, Advocate contended that the applicant has not been named in the said First Information Reports (FIR No.131 of 2025 and FIR No.133 of 2025). He has been falsely implicated by the police. He was not identified by the alleged victim in the Test Identification Parade. The alleged recoveries were false. Applicant is not a convicted person. He is a permanent resident of District Rohtak (Haryana), therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. He is in custody since 29.04.2025, and, Harendra alias Bittu and Sahil, the co-accused of similar role, have already been granted regular bail by this Court.
6. Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Brief Holder, has opposed the bail application orally.
7. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused in detention during the investigation or trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.
8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.
9. The Bail Application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant - Mohit Jadav be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
|
| |
